Comparison of C-Band Quad-Polarization Synthetic Aperture Radar Wind Retrieval Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work discusses the accuracy of C-2PO (C-band cross-polarized ocean backscatter) and CMOD4 (C-band model) geophysical model functions (GMF) for sea surface wind speed retrieval from satellite-born Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) images over in the Northwest Pacific off the coast of China. In situ observations are used for comparison of the retrieved wind speed using two established wind retrieval models: C-2PO model and CMOD4 GMF. Using 439 samples from 92 RADARSAT-2 fine quad-polarization SAR images and corresponding reference winds, we created two subset wind speed databases: the training and testing subsets. From the training data subset, we retrieve ocean surface wind speeds (OSWSs) from different models at each polarization and compare with reference wind speeds. The RMSEs of SAR-retrieved wind speeds are: 2.5 m/s: 2.11 m/s (VH-polarized), 2.13 m/s (HV-polarized), 1.86 m/s (VV-polarized) and 2.26 m/s (HH-polarized) and the correlation coefficients are 0.86 (VH-polarized), 0.85(HV-polarized), 0.87(VV-polarized) and 0.83 (HH-polarized), which are statistically significant at the 99.9% significance level. Moreover, we found that OSWSs retrieved using C-2PO model at VH-polarized are most suitable for moderate-to-high winds while CMOD4 GMF at VV-polarized tend to be best for low-to-moderate winds. A hybrid wind retrieval model is put forward composed of the two models, C-2PO and CMOD4 and sets of SAR test data are used in order to establish an appropriate wind speed threshold, to differentiate the wind speed range appropriate for one model from that of the other. The results show that the OSWSs retrieved using our hybrid method has RMSE of 1.66 m/s and the correlation coefficient are 0.9, thereby significantly outperforming both the C-2PO and CMOD4 models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".